How to recover for child trafficking cases? How to determine responsibility for high-altitude throwing? The judicial interpretation of the Civil Code has arrived
2024-09-27
The Supreme People's Court has announced the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on the Application of the Tort Liability Part of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (Part 1), which will come into effect on September 27, 2024. Today, the Supreme People's Court issued a judicial interpretation on the tort liability section of the Civil Code, focusing on the new situations and urgent disputes that have been widely concerned by society and encountered in judicial practice after the implementation of the Civil Code, clarifying responsibilities, and determining the division and resolution of disputes. How can family members of child trafficking cases seek compensation? In recent years, the trafficking and abduction of children, as well as the abduction of intellectually disabled women, have received widespread attention from society. These criminal acts not only seriously violate the personal rights and interests of children, but also bring enormous mental pain and economic burden to the families of victims. Relatives often spend a lot of time and money searching for relatives, so can the expenses incurred by searching for relatives be compensated? This judicial interpretation has made it clear that if the guardian illegally removes the ward from guardianship and requests compensation for reasonable expenses incurred to restore the guardianship status and other property losses, the people's court should support it. In addition to clarifying the criteria for determining serious mental harm, judicial interpretations also specify the criteria for determining serious mental harm. According to regulations, if a guardian is illegally released from guardianship, resulting in serious damage to the relationship between parents, children, or other close relatives, it shall be deemed as serious mental harm as stipulated in the Civil Code. How to determine liability for infringement by the ward? Throughout the years, issues such as the protection of the rights and interests of left behind children in rural areas, underage children from divorced families, and "campus bullying" have received widespread attention from society. The judicial interpretation of the tort liability section of the Civil Code released today further standardizes the issue of responsibility for the infringement of the ward, providing clearer legal guidance for the protection of the rights and interests of minors. In practice, there are also cases where non close relatives serve as guardians and the ward has property. In this case, the complete responsibility of the guardian may lead to non close relatives unwilling to serve as guardians, which is not conducive to the growth of minors. To solve this problem, judicial interpretations stipulate that when the people's court orders the guardian to bear responsibility, it should also specify in the judgment that "compensation costs can be paid first from the ward's property, and the shortfall shall be paid by the guardian". At the same time, in order to ensure the healthy growth of the ward, judicial interpretations limit the payment of compensation fees from the ward's property, stipulating that "the necessary living expenses and expenses for completing compulsory education of the ward should be retained". Who will take responsibility for the children's troubles after divorce? Parents are the guardians of underage children. After divorce, who is responsible for the infringement of rights by underage children? In practice, one party of a divorced couple often claims not to take responsibility or to take less responsibility on the grounds that they have not lived with their underage children. The judicial interpretation has responded to the unfair situation of 'whoever contributes takes responsibility'. The judicial interpretation clearly states that after divorce, if a minor child causes harm to others and the victim requests that the divorced couple jointly bear the liability for infringement, the people's court shall support it in accordance with the law. If one party claims not to bear or bear less responsibility on the grounds of not living with the child, the people's court will not support it. Stepparents who have not formed a custody and education relationship with minors shall not be held liable for the infringement of guardianship, and the responsibility shall be borne by the biological parents of the child. This not only better protects the legitimate rights and interests of the infringed parties, but also encourages divorced parents to pay more attention to their children's growth and education, and avoid neglecting their guardianship responsibilities for their children due to divorce. The judicial interpretation on the responsibility of the entrusted guardian within the scope of fault also clarifies that if the ward infringes, the person entrusted to perform guardianship duties shall bear joint responsibility with the guardian who bears full responsibility within the scope of fault. Punishing Campus Bullying and Reasonably Determining the Responsibility of Educational Institutions In recent years, illegal activities such as campus bullying have occurred frequently, and judicial interpretations have also made provisions for punishing campus bullying and reasonably determining the responsibility of educational institutions. Clear: If a student suffers personal injury from external personnel on campus, the third party who commits the infringement shall be the first responsible party, and the educational institution that fails to fulfill its management responsibilities shall bear supplementary responsibilities in order. The judge introduced that if a third party and an educational institution are co defendants, the people's court should reflect in the judgment that the educational institution bears supplementary responsibility in the order of execution. Is the owner responsible for accidents that occur when lending vehicles without compulsory traffic insurance? According to the laws and regulations of our country, motor vehicles must purchase compulsory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance in order to be on the road, which is commonly known as compulsory traffic insurance. But in life, there are always some car owners who hold a lucky mentality and choose not to purchase compulsory traffic insurance. So, if a vehicle without compulsory insurance is handed over to someone else for use, will the main liability for compensation be borne by the accident vehicle? In this regard, the judicial interpretation has made it clear that if a motor vehicle that has not been legally insured for compulsory traffic insurance causes a traffic accident, and the insured obligor and the person responsible for the traffic accident are not the same person, the insured obligor shall jointly bear the responsibility with the person responsible for the traffic accident within the scope of the compulsory motor vehicle insurance liability limit. After getting off the car, who will compensate if their car slides and hits them? It may seem unlikely to say 'my own car hit me', but in real life, such cases are not uncommon. For example, if a driver gets off the vehicle before it stops, and the vehicle slides and causes injury or death, the driver or their family members often have disputes with insurance companies over compensation issues from compulsory motor vehicle insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance. There is some controversy over whether insurance companies will compensate for such cases. In this regard, judicial interpretations have made it clear and unified judgment standards, stipulating that if a motor vehicle driver leaves the vehicle and suffers damage due to collision or crushing caused by the vehicle due to their own fault such as failure to take braking measures, the driver, who has actual control over the motor vehicle, cannot "infringe on their own rights". The driver is not a subject of third-party insurance claims and should not obtain compensation under compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance for motor vehicles. It is reported that this regulation is also intended to urge drivers to check their vehicles before leaving, ensuring that the vehicles are parked legally and safely. Who is responsible for traffic accidents caused by scrapped assembled vehicles? According to the provisions of the Civil Code, if a motor vehicle that has been assembled or has reached the scrap standard is transferred through sale or other means and causes damage in a traffic accident, the transferor and transferee shall bear joint and several liability. Who is responsible for injuring people with prohibited vicious dogs? In recent years, incidents of dogs injuring people have occurred from time to time. In order to regulate dog ownership behavior and ensure public safety, judicial interpretations have clearly prohibited the use of dogs that cause harm to others. Regardless of whether the victim is at fault or not, the owner should bear full responsibility. Judicial interpretation stipulates that if dangerous animals such as vicious dogs that are prohibited from being kept cause harm to others, and the animal owner or manager claims not to bear responsibility or to reduce responsibility, the people's court will not support it. For example, the dog management regulations in a certain city prohibit the breeding of Tibetan Mastiffs. The breeder violated this regulation by raising a Tibetan Mastiff. When a Tibetan Mastiff bites someone, regardless of the management measures taken by the owner or whether the victim has engaged in behavior such as teasing the Tibetan Mastiff, the owner should bear the responsibility for compensation. What legal consequences should be borne for damage caused by high-altitude throwing, and how to determine responsibility if the person throwing the object cannot be found? Today, the Supreme People's Court issued a judicial interpretation on the tort liability section of the Civil Code, further refining the issue of responsibility for high-altitude littering and clarifying the subject and division of responsibility for harm caused by high-altitude littering. The crime of throwing objects from a high altitude is a newly added offense in the 11th Amendment to the Criminal Law, which officially came into effect on March 1, 2021. It stipulates that those who throw objects from buildings or other heights, if the circumstances are serious, shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than one year, detention or surveillance, and shall also or only be fined. Those who commit the acts mentioned in the preceding paragraph and also constitute other crimes shall be convicted and punished in accordance with the provisions of heavier punishment. In addition, according to the provisions of our Civil Code, if someone causes damage to others by throwing or falling objects from a high altitude, the infringer shall also bear corresponding civil compensation liability. In some cases of infringement caused by high-altitude throwing or falling objects in daily life, if the real infringer is not found, who should bear the responsibility in such cases? Judicial interpretations clearly state that if high-altitude throwing or falling objects cause harm to others, the specific infringer is the first responsible party, and property service enterprises that have not taken necessary safety measures shall bear supplementary responsibilities in order. In practice, it is not uncommon to find a specific infringer after a high-altitude throwing incident occurs. In order to ensure that the victim receives relief, according to the provisions of the Civil Code, the property that violates safety protection obligations and the building user who may cause harm will bear corresponding responsibilities. So, how to divide the responsibility between the two and who will bear the responsibility first? Previously, there was no clear legal provision, but this judicial interpretation has also been clarified and refined. Regulation: If it is impossible to determine the specific infringer of the harm caused by high-altitude throwing or falling objects, property service enterprises and other building managers who have not taken necessary safety measures shall bear the corresponding responsibility for their fault first. The remaining damages suffered by the infringed party shall be compensated appropriately by the building user who may have caused the harm. The above-mentioned responsible parties have the right to pursue compensation from specific infringers determined in the future after assuming responsibility. According to the introduction, the premise is that all investigation methods have been exhausted and the specific infringer cannot be found before the potential infringer of the building is held liable for compensation. This is a major premise. (New Society)
Edit：HAN ZHUOLING Responsible editor：CAICAI
Source：chinanews.com
Special statement: if the pictures and texts reproduced or quoted on this site infringe your legitimate rights and interests, please contact this site, and this site will correct and delete them in time. For copyright issues and website cooperation, please contact through outlook new era email：lwxsd@liaowanghn.com
Recommended Reading Change it 
Home
